In the wake of the rally and town meeting and the general campus furor over the recent racial attacks, I think the response has been generally positive. A number of students have demonstrated their outrage, the faculty has written a letter and the administration has been supportive. However, a couple types of remarks made during the discussion surrounding the incidents are disturbing.
The first is the idea that everyone's getting all upset over nothing. While it's unfortunate that these incidents happened, they are nothing on the scale of events that have happened in the past.
While I concede that there are far worse things that could have occurred, this response underestimates how injurious attacks of that nature can be.
In a country where racial violence is not uncommon, racial epithets written anonymously on students' doors seem to indicate a warning. Those words demonstrate those students are being watched, that they are being singled out because of their race, and that someone is angry. The fact that the two students in Little Hall felt threatened enough to switch dorms illustrates just how frightening that can seem.
Incidents of that nature also make you wonder how widespread that sentiment is among the Dartmouth community. If a few students felt angry enough to write those types of words on other students' doors, how many others are thinking similar sorts of ideas?
Three incidents within two weeks demonstrated a possible trend. The purpose of the rally and the town meeting was not only to demonstrate campus outrage at the first attacks but to prevent the progression from continuing.
And finally, the mobilization of students over these incidents was partly because these were finally concrete incidences of hatred at which to point. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are often manifested very subtly at Dartmouth -- in comments, jokes and programming events. In the long run, these types of occurrences are just as hurtful, but they are much harder to stop. The recent events are representative of much larger issues.
The second type of remark is the appeal to students of color, mainly by white students, to tell them why this affects all students and what they can do to stop it.
To those people on this campus who feel marginalized because of specific factors, including race, sexual orientation, and disability, the connection seems obvious. If someone can attack one person today, they might attack you tomorrow.
However, the link may not seem so clear to people who do not feel discriminated against. But, even if you are not directly affected, someone you care about might be hurt.
A friend or a sorority sister might be subject to attacks. If you are straight and have children, one of them may come out to you someday. If you are white, you may fall in love with someone who is not, and you may even have children who are biracial. If you have not yet been affected by racism, sexism, heterosexism, or any other "-ism," someday you will be.
More fundamentally, I disagree with the assumption behind the question, which is that you should only act if it is in your self interest.
The simple fact that people are hurt every day by various manifestations of hate and intolerance seems reason enough to act. Responding proactively, not out of pity, but out of compassion and empathy seem to me to be the response merited by the circumstances.
Also implicit in this remark is the idea that it is the responsibility of students of color to educate their white counterparts on issues of race. Students who are already busy with classes, jobs and activities are given an additional burden of teaching their culture to other students. This shifts the burden of preventing racism from white people, who are usually the initiators of the attacks, onto people of color, who are, all too often, the recipients.
In an academic institution with a library full of books, an ORC full of classes and bulletin boards full of meetings and events, educating yourself shouldn't be difficult. All it takes is commitment.
